Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribalwar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tribalwar

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

No citations. WP:WEB and not a "place" of historial record to keep internal events. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From New Users

  • Keep same as above 24.12.146.151 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! Same as above... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.185.121 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 04:09:01 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tribalwar was cited from the Tribes article previously, and the citations appear to have been deleted (by replacing the link with the word alone. 68.147.242.17 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User Shane is attempting to 66.41.43.67 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [Added by Data] User nominating this page for deletion is acting solely on a personal vendetta. The TribalWar community is 15,786 members and 7,248,464 forum posts of Internet history. It is the sole remaining community web site for the Earthsiege/Starsiege/Tribes universe, and has been THE source for Tribes news and resources since 1999. In short, there is no viable reason to delete this page.
  • (personal attacks removed) 71.196.158.238
    • No personal attacks, please. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. [Added by old_skul] This AFD is a personal vendetta against the site and should be summarily discounted. Although the article could use some cleanup, it's clearly a page in history for many people and serves as a historical record of many of the social interactions that make internet forums generally interesting from a social standpoint. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia to remove this article. Old skul 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. [Added by DwarfVader] As the page describes Tribalwar has been a part of internet history, much in the same way that Something Awful, and the person named Maddox. Both have articles writing on Wiki, just as Tribalwar does. If Tribalwar were to be deleted for the reasons stated above those entries would have to be removed as well as they fall EXACTLY under the same qualifications that Tribalwar does. Bugs or Shane recently created his own unfourtunate drama over at Tribalwar, that resulted in him making an ass out of himself. He blames Tribalwar for this very incident and thus has choosen to attempt to have this article deleted in an effort to "get back at Tribalwar."---DwarfVader 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. TribalWar is a relevant staple of the internet and gaming community. It has referential ties to other similar websites such as Something Awful and 4Chan, and has several notable "claims to fame" such as interaction with CNN and Tribes community-specific LAN events. TribalWar is the last resource for any Tribes/Starseige/Earthsiege content and continues to renew its content to compete with modern gaming resources. This proposed deletion is a purely personal and spiteful event due to TribalWar forum mockery/embarrasment of Shane "Bugs5382" Froebel, and further discussion is a waste of Wikipedia resources. As noted by TribalWar Site Administrator Anthony "Rayn" Maio, Shane Froebel was a TribalWar staff member who was fired from the site several years ago, and this proposed deletion is only part of his ongoing vendetta against the community. --Fboftwfame 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Same as above
  • Keep Same as above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncleslappy (talk • contribs).
  • Keep User shane's actions are not WP:AGF due to an off site personal attack.WP:NPA IamZombie 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Same as above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.54.181 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep Same as above stated reasons. To erase a wikipedia article based on the temper tantrums of a single person would be to violate the reason for Wiki being as great and comprehensive as it is.--24.166.185.5 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Neither WP:WEB nor WP:NPOV have been violated by Tribalwar's entry. This delete nomination is a mean spirited counter-attack by Shane on an organization he has a well-know vandetta against. Shane, if you wish to become a Wiki moderator as your personal page suggests, you might not want to engage in this blantent sort of childish behavior in the future. Tribalwar isn't the only place you'll get fired from as an admin. 67.174.18.197 05:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. TW is one of the most popular forums on the web and as such deserves a Wikipedia page. I'm quite perplexed that Shane has nominated this for deletion, to be quite blunt. Shane, why not just help make it better, as others have been spending their time doing?—Tommyjb 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per all reasons listed. TW is an important forum and has made a few notable contributions to internet culture. Not to mention Shane is doing this for all the wrong reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.125.153.175 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep Same as above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.170.94.234 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep I think it should be kept. I also think it does need to be slightly rewritten. Helot 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep By WP:WEB guidelines, a website is fit for an article if it has appeared in a major outside source. Various outside sources have mentioned www.tribalwar.com due to the internet meme All Your Base. Also by the same, http://pc.gamezone.com, as well as a multitude of other gaming-related newssites have mentioned Tribalwar in relation to the Tribes franchise. These qualify it under WP:WEB. WP:NPOV only comes into play when there is a debate over any information given in the article. This is easily remidied by editing, not deletion. Xpdnc 05:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Tribalwar is a great forum and has a lot of users. It deserves a wiki. Shane's personal problems with the site triggered this and that is not fair to Tribalwar. This AFD request is an abuse of Wikipedia 67.80.77.53 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Unseemly personal issues aside, www.tribalwar.com is deserving of a wikipedia article for several reasons. Firstly, due to the fact that it is directly linked to the popularization of the All Your Base phenomenon. The AYB movie that was cited in Newsweek as being one of the first incidences of homespun viral media was developed from original tribalwar forum content, and was posted there for the first time. The site and its content are therefore a legitimate part of history from an internet content perspective, and may serve as a reference for viral content history and research. Secondly, the CNN hotlinking episode, although minor, is a footnote that serves as a useful cautionary tale for internet content providers with respect to the practice of hotlinking. The many thousand people who were subject to the incident may or may not be aware of its background, and considering the sizable population of those affected, it is entirely justifiable to think that they may want a record of what really happened at that time. As such, the site is notable. However, it still admittedly requires some editing and provision of direct sources. LogRoller 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ^ same as above ^—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.235.15 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep one of the first great gaming sites and a Tribes franchise icon. Its evolved more beyond it original roots, it just needs updates.69.108.239.32 10:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A large part of the tribes community for six years and one of the major discussion sites on the web. With a great history that should be documented on wikipedia. 69.169.220.162 10:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Same as above
  • Keep As linked earlier, the person who marked this has made threats stating that he would keep re-marking every 10 months. Coupled with the fact that it was done in response to an off-site joke, I believe that it violates WP:HA as it is clearly harassment and bullying. Xpdnc 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Vote stuck out. Please don't vote keep more than once. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • New users please note: Arguments about vendettas, or about other subjects having Wikipedia articles, are irrelevant. Your best arguments to demonstrate that this article should be kept are to cite sources. Cite magazine feature articles, books, papers in journals, documentaries, and so forth that are about this web site, and that are from sources independent of the web site. Sources are a fundamental thing here at Wikipedia. Arguing about how "great" a web site is does not address the charge, made below, that this article is unverifiable (in contravention of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy) or original research (in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy). If it cannot be shown — if you don't cite sources to show — that this article is verifiable and that it does not comprise a wholly new history and description of the web site that has not aready been published by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, then all the "It's great. You must keep it." arguments in the world won't prevent its deletion. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Thank you for being the one Wikipedian who provided valuable information to this discussion. TribalWar has a multitude of members prepared to correct any problems with the TribalWar Wiki, and would appreciate insight into any issues with the information, (like you have provided) rather than attacks at membership/credibility/so forth. Fboftwfame 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepSame as above—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.215.75 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 12:34:39 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it has valuable info. --TimBoston 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-Scoobs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.81.10.2 (talk • contribs).
  • KeepSame as above - Paladin-5
  • KEEP [eVo Superman] - TribalWar is a legendary gaming site and will go down in the annals of WWW history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.227.161.167 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 17:34:04 (UTC)
  • Keep - The major complaints with this page seem to involve content that shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia. The discussion page would have been the appropriate place to talk about removing those sections. Also, note that there does seem to be an effort in the discussion page, including a temp page, attempting to clean the article, contrary to GassyGuy's claim above. Finally, on the specifics of notability, the CNN hotlinking issue is still cited as a reason never to hotlink anything. --BlueSoxSWJ 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.88.218 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-22 00:45:18 (UTC)
  • Keep This article really needs cleanup, but I think its notable enough to stay. This AFD is very ugly considering its origins and reflects the worst of Wikipedia. Mrcfjf 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are no policies that warrant deleting this article. --Goatwarrior 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article goes against so many Wikipedia standards that I won't even bother to list them all They have been posted already, anyway. --24.95.157.245 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a highly dangerous precedent to set to delete content on a bad faith nomination from a user with bias. Surely this is a small, tangential article but the intent of the nominator must be taken into to account. All the article needs is a major clean up.--Rayn21 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteTribalwar claims alot but provides practically no references to back it up, going against Wikipedia standards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.121.17.5 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep Cleaning this article up a bit should be sufficient enough to bring it in line with WP:WEB and WP:NPOV. --LX702 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From established users

  • Keep. Tribalwar is fairly popular internet message-board. Has references comparable to other boards like 4chan. Addps4cat 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No outside references. That doesn't gives it a WP:NPOV. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You're only trying to get the page deleted because everyone hates you on the forum. Please stop being such a child. Addps4cat 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Data's comment. User nominated the page due to an incident on the forum/forums IRC channel. Article has survived AFD nominations before, no reason for it to be deleted now, least of all because the user is mad. DemonWeb 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Has over 10k Google hits, seems notable but needs work and sources. Crazynas t 06:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Crazynas. For the love of God, run it through cleanup and NPOV, and add outside references. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment should it get kept, there are portions of the article which will need to be rewritten in order to make sense. On first glance, the "notable events" section would appear to be in the wrong order for one thing. BigHaz 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with Rehaul. The user is clearly doing this for person reasons. The Tribalwar forums are more than notable by sheer population alone population, hits, and the relevancy to the Starsiege: Tribes community. The developers of Tribes: Vengeance seem to have spent a great deal of time there, though not to any positive affect since the game sold horribly. Far lesser fansites for less popular topics have been kept in the past. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rather notable forum for being one of the starting points of the All Your Bases meme. Finding suitable sources should be a matter of a bit of effort. hateless 04:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I see almost nothing in terms of outside notability that makes this subject deserving of an article of its own. IronDuke 04:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Bucketsofg✐ 13:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable website, alexa rank of 71000 Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Alexa is an absolutely terrible source for page visit information. Its toolbar is practically spyware. That is like referencing The Onion.--67.76.181.133 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup.Much more notable than many sites that have a wikipedia article.Needs some cleanup.--Jsone 10:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:WEB. Mere mentions of a web-site in the media aren't enough; the text of the notability guideline is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (my emphasis). Sock flood not a good sign; see this thread on the tribalwar forums. More than usual, all keep votes here by new users should be discounted. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If we held that standard to [1], we'd have to delete every page there except maybe slashdot or SA. Just because it is written somewhere as policy doesn't mean it necessarily holds to every single page like law. Also you contend that these are sock puppets and yet the forum link you posted is ample evidence that one person didn't make all these comments or accounts. This isn't a vote btw, it's a discussion. Addps4cat 13:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I doubt the verity of your claim that Slashdot and SA are the only two Internet forums that are notable per WP:WEB, but that is not the main issue. I don't see how this article meets WP:WEB, which, by the way, is only a guideline, not "policy". The sole rationale provided for why this article meets WP:WEB above—that it has been covered by the press—is not sufficient, in my opinion. Note also that the presence of other articles on non-notable stuff on Wikipedia does not excuse or justify the presence of this article on a non-notable stuff. As regards sock puppets, you might have a technically valid point that these voters are not sockpuppets but meatpuppets. Consider my initial statement suitably amended as appropriate. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I also have to second Kaustuv Chaudhuri's recommendation to discount all votes from new accounts. I also recommend to discount all votes where the voter makes a personal attack against the AfD nominator as part of the reasoning for his or her vote. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that personal attacks on Shane should be kept out of this DISCUSSION (for the second time, this isn't a black and white VOTE sir). However, may supporters of the Tribalwar wikipedia article reacted in this manner because Shane's nomination to delete their article is based entirely on recent events on Tribalwar pertaining to images of his sister. Shane has even gone so far to try and negotiate with Tribalwar, reportedly stating "I will withdraw the Afd, if you can convince everyone, and I mean everyone on TW to post zero information on me and my family members ever again. That included everything: pictures, transcripts, images, and etc. everything. And that is the only compromise that I will give. One thing is broken, I will re-add it to AFD." I agree the Tribalwar wiki article might need some work to get it up to standards, but this is a gross misuse of Wikipedia administration tools by Shane. -Bonafide 67.174.18.197 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • At the risk of writing too much on a subject I don't really care about, I would like to point everyone to WP:SOAP. Please keep forum wars confined to the forums, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Comments about the nominator are not germane to the discussion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Whether the article should be kept or deleted is based on the merits of AfD nomination and the subsequent comments of other wikieditors. If the article has enough merit for inclusion in Wikipedia, then it will often survive the AfD process regardless of the nominator's motivations. With that said, most of the keep votes have either engaged in a personal attack against the nominator, outright declared this as a bad faith nomination, or both. None of these provide enough merit to keep the article by themselves. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I have to disagree. Just because myself and others are new accounts dosen't mean that our opinions on the matter are not valid.IamZombie 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • New users like you are unlikely to base your keep comments on our policies and guidelines. Kimchi.sg 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • That's kind of an elitist attitude. Yes, I recently registered my account. That does not mean that I have not been using wikipedia as a source of information for a number of years now. I created my account so I could provide my opinion of the tribalwar entry. I find this type of accusation insulting. the tribalwar wiki entry has existed since March of 2005, (possibly earlier than that, but the edits only show the last 500). As to why I never created an account on the site, I never felt that any input I could provide would be of importantce, until now. This is a issue I felt strongly enough about to register and voice my opinion. IamZombie 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Note: User:IamZombie is a new users whose only edits so far have been to this AFD discussion. -- The Anome 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:EQ See Words of Advice "Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular." User:IamZombie
          • See, even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose :) Addps4cat 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Ironic isn't it. (it's the same reason we're here in the firstplace. :) IamZombie 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Indeed it is. User:The Anome makes it abundantly clear that Wikipedia protects their own, and has nothing but contempt for the lay users, be they new or old, who contribute to their site. This AfD has very little to do with the content of Tribalwar and much more to do with the actions of User:Bugs5382, and anyone from WP who states otherwise is either uninformed or a damn liar. --LX702 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 11:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gamecruft. Artw 14:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like a serious case of meatpuppetry. Closing admin: Please don't be intimidated by the hordes of new users - remember that regardless of hordes of new users, WP:V is non-negotiable, and none of the sources in the article are reliable sources. Captainktainer * Talk 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Remember, verifiability and reliable sources are NOT reasons for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The idea behind wikipedia is to *improve* articles, not just delete them because they don't follow policy. Addps4cat 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, being wholly unverifiable is one of the primary reasons for deleting articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability is our of our fundamental content policies. If you want to argue that this article should not be deleted, you should be citing sources to demonstrate that the article is verifiable, not arguing that we should ignore one of the project's fundamental policies. Uncle G 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes you are correct, being wholly unverifiable is a reason for deletion. My argument is that TW is indeed verifiable and does have citable sources. Just because the TW wiki page currently lacks those features does not mean it should be deleted out-of-hand. People citing those policies want this page to be deleted because of that without realizing the article can improved not deleted. Addps4cat 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
          • If you wish to argue that the article is verifiable, then cite the sources that you argue can be cited. For best effect, cite them in the article. Adding citations of reliable sources to an article is one of the best ways to argue that it should not be deleted. Just claiming that there are sources, without citing them or even giving a single clue as to what they are, holds little to no water, on the other hand. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect I'll regret this, but I would point Captainktainer in the general direction of 4chan (its only AfD was closed as bad-faith). I think there are various other forum and website articles that should obviously be there, but which have serious problems meeting WP:V too. (Unfortunately, it seems like everyone agrees it's a good idea, but fewer actually follow it.) - makomk 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no references to other reliable sources that mention events in this article are provided, thus fails verifiability test. We've been here before; verifiability is non-negotiable. Kimchi.sg 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB; agree with User:Captainktainer re WP:V and meatpuppetry. -- The Anome 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, again, regarding the positioning in the community: 69,000 Google results for "Tribalwar.com" (96,000 for Tribalwar alone, but that's more vague). There were also interviews and official contests held by the developers of Tribes: Vengeance during its development, as they regarded the site to be the most important in the community. Note that other fansites in such positions, such as BZPower have passed their AfDs due to the same reasoning. Of course, it's hard to call this purely a Tribes fansite any longer, but it still has standing in the community and is linked to from outside for purely that reason. I do agree, however, that the article needs to be completely rewritten/overhauled, and much of the cruftyness removed -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep but needs a rewrite as per Consumed Crustacean's comments. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems to be evidence that it's a reasonably significant fan forum for the Tribes games (not from quite as reliable sources as I'd like, but anything more is probably too much to ask, this being game-related and all.) Most of the article content is totally unverifiable cruft that has no place on Wikipedia, though. - makomk 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Before we go about deleting this article, lets have a look at WP:V. per Wikipedia:Deletion policy in the section about things inwhich deletion is not needed, there is a section on what to do with unverifiable articles. Please give this one month, if no citations are found in that time frame (out of the many ghits), then bring this back for deletion. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - One of the biggest puppeteering AFDs I've ever seen... impressive... anyways, just wanted to say that regardless of notability, a good deal of information in the current article is OR and unverifiable and should be removed, though probably after this debate has reached conclusion. Wickethewok 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR WP:WEB. Whispering 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, especially if AYBABTU originated there. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, It took me a while to determine which way to go, but once you boil it's all down, this is ultimately a vanity article. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I'll also like to note that the TW members have some serious ownership issues with regard to this article. This is why I doubt that a rewrite will properly scrub the article of it's WP:VANITY status. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems to violate WP:OR and WP:WEB. Also, the massive wad of meatpuppetry is disturbing. Picaroon9288 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Addps4cat, but must be cleaned up. Themindset 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Your continuous use of "meatpuppet" is offensive and on the order of the personal attacks which were aimed squarely (and rightfully) at the user who nominated this article for deletion. If you can't comment without calling us names, then don't comment. We have just as much right to be here (if not more) than you do -- meatpuppets or otherwise. 63.230.5.15 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, Meatpuppet is a perfectly normal classification in AfDs, especially ones invovling forums like this. Read the link. It is not a personal attack. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply - "Normal" by what standards? Most English-speaking individuals would take offense to being called a "meatpuppet". Further, from your link:
        • Quote: "Use of this term is generally not advised, since it can be perceived as highly uncivil, and is certainly likely to discourage new users from participating further." 63.230.5.15 21:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment it's fairly obvious that the forum is recruiting people to give keep "votes" for this AfD. When it's done to this degree, some editors get annoyed. Can you not see the reason for that? At that, most English-speaking individuals wouldn't know what the hell "Articles for Deletion" is either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment,Removed by IamZombie 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) User above posted it in a better manner.IamZombie 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks are never rightfully aimed at anyone on Wikipedia (WP:NPA). Calling users meatpuppets is certainly uncivil (also a violation of policy: WP:CIVIL) and possibly also a personal attack. Your criticism here is valid, and I at least will openly admit to not considering WP:CIVIL inviolable and knowingly making (possible) personal attacks. But this accusation is not random or unjustified. In my opinion, meatpuppettry is an apt and evocative description of externally influenced collusion (I have provided the evidence earlier) to sway consensus on Wikipedia, which makes one of the most fundamental and inviolable policies—indeed the backbone—of Wikipedia, neutrality, impossible. You certainly have as much (not more!) right as anyone to contribute to Wikipedia, but note that anything you contribute will be mercilessly edited by other editors. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Most Internet forums are not notable (in my opinion), and this one doesn't make much of a case as far as WP:WEB. I see claims on this AfD that it could have reliable sources, but as nobody has added any to the article, I have a certain degree of doubt. GassyGuy 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Although it is perhaps a notable message board, I'm not sure if wikipedia is the place for such an article. It also strikes me as vanity and useless hard to read incidents such as "chairgate" do not help this article. To me a encyclopedia dramatica entry would be more appropriate.Lenn0r 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Having seen the entry for encyclopedia dramatica, I'm inclined to agree that most of the information in the article should be moved, leaving possibly only an entry that describes Tribalwar's place as a hub for the game series Tribes. The history cruft should be moved to the other site which seems a better fit. Xpdnc 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Seems notable to be on BigBoards (even though's a bad indicator of forum size, but thats another story). Motivation of nominator is also an issue. -- Steel 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no external cites, 80th on big-boards isn't impressive. Phr (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per 80th on big-boards, though I'm not sure what really can be said about this forum... not many claims to fame aside of the AYBABTU thing, which is already covered in an article of its own. If kept, this needs massive cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per ranking on big boards. There are many websites with even lower Alexa rankings. Also, Alexa may be unreliable source of website info. --Richman271talk/con 21:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Alexa is misleading for this type of site since Alexa basically measures page views, and sites like this get tons of reloads from their users. 80th on big-boards is pretty feeble IMO. Take a look at the higher-ranked ones (70-80, say): http://rankings.big-boards.com/?p=4 -- 79th is "Howard forums" mobile phone discussion board, 78th is "S2KI Honda S2000 owners' community", etc.; I can't see those as encyclopedic. Big-boards itself is pretty specialized, so 80th place is really no big deal. It might be evidence (not conclusive) of notibility if a site is in Big-boards top 10, but certainly not 80th. Phr (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Shane was fired from TribalWar for this exact shit. He abused his position as a staff member at TW to delete forum posts by people [personal attacks removed]. As far as notability, if it's okay to have articles about people who troll Internet forums (e.g. Gay Nigger Association of America), there should be no problem with ones about Internet forums themselves. Nido 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing wrong with articles on internet forums that are notable and well-documented. That doesn't appear to be the case with this article. Maybe the forum could get a mention in the Tribes article. This article is largely about various personalities who hang out on the forum, which are totally nn. Phr (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Please review WP:NPA. No personal attacks please. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V and for missing WP:WEB and for and generally being WP:VSCA. Internet fora need to demonstrate notability, and this doesn't so much fail to so aa not bother even trying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable, lacks verifiable sources. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability, and verifiability problems. If this article is kept than a major cleanup is needed to remove non-encyclopedic content. Possibly also semi-protect to ward off the hordes of forumpuppets Bwithh 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Alexa traffic ranking 71,752 and dropping, but at least it's in the top 100,000. Content needs verification, but that's not a deletion issue. --John Nagle 16:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. As mentioned, Alexa is *not* a reliable source of information. Their data is dependent on their toolbar, which no computer savvy user would ever use. As TribalWar's main audience is computer savvy users, Alexa's data is highly inaccurate.--24.161.31.179 21:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, I agree. As I said before, Google results and the website's connection with Sierra / Irrational Games / the general Tribes community are far better indicators. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is pretty clearly a bad faith nomination. However, if we don't use Alexa or Google as standards for websites, what do we use? It doesn't appeare to be notable, and contains no outside sources. Danielross40 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I agree wth Danielross40 in that this is likely a bad faith nom but that does not excuse the fact that this article does not verify anything with outside sources. Also, I found the language very inclusive and after reading the article in full i did not come away with much valuable information about Tribes or even thefurum itself really. So, if this article gets a rewrite with NPOV and is given good sources i would suggest keeping it. But until then this article is mainly useless for the outsider as a peice of esoteric fan/gamecruft.-(chubbstar)— talk | contrib | 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article does not give any information that is useful enough for an encyclopedia. Thus, delete or a major clean-up. --angers 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Tribalwar_4ed2.html"